The Al-Jazeera article just sounded like a shortened version of a couple of Yahoo-news articles I read. I didn't detect a breach by the big-'ol-bias monster in any of them - they all just recounted what the investigative report said. So...what's the problem again?
By all means, continue talking about media bias, it's a worthwhile topic - but I don't see why it had to come up with this particular article. Just looking for reasons to cry "wolf" or what?
That article wasn't bad, but what kind of legitimate news service quotes one of their OWN reporters in another reporter's story? Check the quotation of Rosalind Jordan. They even misspelled her first name (as Rosiland Jordan; I am hoping that was an error by the translator). Shouldn't they have gone to Reuters or to the AP or have quoted an American newspaper directly? Also, you don't have to go far in that paper to find some biased reportage. Read the article about Shining Path in Peru. A group of terrorists ambushes and kills 12 soldiers and 6 civilians (including children), and yet it's the former President (and, by extension, the Peruvian government) accused of conducting a "dirty war" against Shining Path. Now, I wouldn't argue that Alberto Fujimori is a great guy; he clearly is not. Still, how does one write a serious article as if Shining Path has led an "insurrection," rather than committed terrorism?
Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"